UPClytics
DEEN
AnmeldenTesten
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 316/2023

12. Sept. 2023·EP3430921 · VAPORIZATION DEVICE SYSTEMS AND METHODS

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Patent nichtig)
Verfahrensart
Nichtigkeit
Kategorie
Hauptnichtigkeitsklage
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Beklagte
Vertreter
Division
Paris CD
Richter
Technologie
  • Electrical engineering
    Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
  • Other fields
    Other consumer goods
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
17. Jan. 2025
Letzte Entscheidung
19. Feb. 2025
EPA-Einspruch
Im Vergleich
Die Bilanz des Gerichts für diese Art von Verfahren, gezählt in erstinstanzlichen Entscheidungen. Eine Zahl in Klammern gibt an, auf wie vielen Entscheidungen eine Quote beruht.
Patent nichtigMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC37% (34/91)124
Paris CDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter François ThomasGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Maximilian HaedickeGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Max TilmannGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Altria Group (45 Verfahren)·Juul Labs Group (33 Verfahren)

14 Tage kostenlos testenBereits Nutzer? Anmelden
Verwandte Verfahren
Alle Verfahren zu diesem Patent

Dieser Streit umfasst 17 weitere Verfahren

UPC CFI 531/2026·UPC CFI 537/2026·UPC CFI 538/2026·UPC CoA 328/2025·UPC CFI 298/2025 und 12 weitere

5 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent

UPC CFI 330/2023·APL 588420/2023·APL 588422/2023·APL 588423/2023·APL 588426/2023

Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.

Weitere Verfahren: Paris CD·2023

Entscheidungen
  • 2025-02-19
    Öffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Paris Local Division denied POSCO's application under R. 262.1(b) RoP to access the register of the infringement case (ArcelorMittal v. XPENG), because the action was at an early stage with no validity challenge yet filed and no sufficient justification for access based on parallel EPO opposition proceedings.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
    • Third-party access to register under R. 262.1(b) RoP
    • Balancing interests in infringement proceedings versus EPO opposition proceedings
    • Requirement for reasoned request for register access
  • 2025-01-17
    Revocation ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Paris Central Division (Seat, Panel 1) revoked European patent EP 3 430 921 B1 in its entirety, with effect for Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden. The claimant NJOY Netherlands B.V. succeeded in demonstrating that granted claim 1 lacked clarity/added matter, and the defendant Juul Labs International Inc.'s twelve auxiliary requests were all found unallowable. A thirteenth conditional auxiliary request (2d) was rejected as unreasonably numerous and unclear. Juul Labs was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)
    • Revocation action
    • Claim interpretation and clarity
    • Added matter
    • Admission of auxiliary requests
    • Reasonableness in number of conditional amendments (R. 50.2 RoP)
Dokumente
Alle 254 Dokumente anzeigen
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Outcome of the Order2025-01-21Nicht öffentlich
close app2025-01-21Öffentlich
Outcome of the Order2025-01-21Nicht öffentlich
close app2025-01-21Öffentlich
Outcome of the Order2025-01-21Nicht öffentlich
close app2025-01-21Öffentlich
Outcome of the Order2025-01-21Nicht öffentlich
close app2025-01-21Öffentlich
Headnote-and-Keywords2025-01-21Nicht öffentlich
DecisionOutcome2025-01-17Nicht öffentlich
Abdeckung: Teilweise.Begründung teilweise extrahiert — einige Abschnitte können unvollständig sein.
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

NJOY Netherlands challenged Juul Labs' EP 3 430 921 (vaporization device) before the Paris Central Division, which found the patent fully invalid on grounds of clarity and/or added matter. All twelve formally admitted auxiliary requests failed to cure the defect, and a thirteenth conditional request was rejected as unclear and unreasonably numerous. The patent was revoked entirely with effect for eight Contracting Member States and Juul Labs was ordered to pay NJOY's costs.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • EP 3 430 921 lacks clarity / added matter such that claim 1 as granted is unallowable

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 84 EPC (clarity); Art. 123(2) EPC (added matter); Art. 138 EPC

    Hinweis: The court found claim 1 invalid and all twelve auxiliary requests (I through XII) also unallowable, resulting in full revocation.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Patent valid as granted: claim 1 meets clarity and added matter requirements

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 84 EPC; Art. 123(2) EPC

    Begründung: Claim 1 found to lack clarity or contain added matter; none of the twelve auxiliary requests cured the defect.

  • Thirteen auxiliary requests (including conditional request (2)d. for 'one or more dependent claims as granted in combination with claim 1 of auxiliary request 1')

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R.50.2 RoP; R.30.1(c) RoP

    Begründung: Request (2)d. was unclear (undefined which combination to examine first), exceeded the reasonable number of conditional amendments under R.50.2 RoP, and was unsupported by any argument explaining why any combination would support validity.

  • Defendant's submission of 31 May 2024 (inadmissible late submission)

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R.9.2 RoP

    Begründung: Not admitted into proceedings.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
Conditional amendments (auxiliary requests) must be reasonable in number and precisely formulated; vague references to 'any combination' of dependent claims do not constitute allowable requestsTwelve conditional auxiliary requests considered the upper limit of what is reasonable in a revocation actionRequests for partial maintenance must identify specific combinations and provide arguments why those combinations support validityAdded matter / clarity: claim 1 invalidity necessarily invalidates dependent claims 2-5 when they are not independently sustained

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

The decision keywords — revocation, claim interpretation, clarity, added matter — indicate that clarity and added matter under Art. 123(2) EPC were the operative grounds. The excerpt does not disclose which specific features of EP 3 430 921 were found to lack clarity or constitute added matter.